Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Rico]

[QUOTE=trofirhen;6434663]I think your statement is very true, but globally speaking, it would render much of Point Grey rather hideous, in my opinion. And no I'm not speaking on behalf of wealth NIMBYs, but for the residents of the entire city, and equally, visitors. Otherwise stated, an elevated track through West Point Grey would, IMO, be just freakingly, hideously, monstrously ugly.[/QUOTE


I feel the arguements against elevated through west Point Grey are pretty weak. Are the non transit users there more important than those on Number 3 road or Surrey or Coquitlam? A case can be made for Broadway to Arbutus (Important to residents and visitors alike, will see a lot more residents/jobs in the future....) the same cannot be said for the western part of the line. That said that part of the line would be shallow cut and cover not bored and my poor recollection of grades is it could be tough to transition to elevated till west of Sasamat....so then the question would be how much extra would we be spending by adding a short section of another construction method? Would it really save that much?

[GlassCity]

[QUOTE=Rico;6434710]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I think your statement is very true, but globally speaking, it would render much of Point Grey rather hideous, in my opinion. And no I'm not speaking on behalf of wealth NIMBYs, but for the residents of the entire city, and equally, visitors. Otherwise stated, an elevated track through West Point Grey would, IMO, be just freakingly, hideously, monstrously ugly.[/QUOTE


I feel the arguements against elevated through west Point Grey are pretty weak. Are the non transit users there more important than those on Number 3 road or Surrey or Coquitlam? A case can be made for Broadway to Arbutus (Important to residents and visitors alike, will see a lot more residents/jobs in the future....) the same cannot be said for the western part of the line. That said that part of the line would be shallow cut and cover not bored and my poor recollection of grades is it could be tough to transition to elevated till west of Sasamat....so then the question would be how much extra would we be spending by adding a short section of another construction method? Would it really save that much?

I agree, I'd rather we stop building elevated cause it is pretty ugly and also takes up surface space. It might be more expensive, but after Broadway we really don't have any corridors that absolutely cannot wait for Skytrain, so we could just save up money and build a subway under Surrey. It's Skytrain and it doesn't "destroy communities" so everybody wins!

Richmond was a special case though because it's below sea level so you can't exactly build underground there. It doesn't even have basements. So elevated was really the only choice there.

[logicbomb]

I agree, in hindsight, the Expo Line could have entirely been built below grade/at-grade between Broadway to New Westminster. Little did we know that the area would end up being rapidly redeveloped (those industrial facilities continue to be torn down).

While it is unsightly, you could get used to the guideways, however the noise issues are apparent if you live near the skytrain.

[squeezied]

Isn't Broadway west of Arbutus too narrow to have guideway columns down the middle of Broadway? It certainly isn't as wide as other corridors which have currently columns.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree, I'd rather we stop building elevated cause it is pretty ugly and also takes up surface space.

But the experience of riding elevated portions of Skytrain is far, far more pleasant than the underground sections. If we're going to talk about aesthetics and people's appreciation of their environment, shouldn't those of the more than a hundred thousand people a day who'll ride the line also count?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

But the experience of riding elevated portions of Skytrain is far, far more pleasant than the underground sections. If we're going to talk about aesthetics and people's appreciation of their environment, shouldn't those of the more than a hundred thousand people a day who'll ride the line also count?

It'd be interesting to do a vote, but I think that most people that enjoy the views would probably trade them in for not having to look at the guideways for the rest of the day. Also, the trains are always so packed that it's really not possible to see out the windows anyway.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

But the experience of riding elevated portions of Skytrain is far, far more pleasant than the underground sections. If we're going to talk about aesthetics and people's appreciation of their environment, shouldn't those of the more than a hundred thousand people a day who'll ride the line also count?

Yes, the riders' experience should count, but I think that a 20-minute (ballpark figure) commute, is nothing compared with having an (often noisy), concrete guideway in your space day and night, month in and month out, not to mention the street and park views that would be scarred by the presence of the guideway.
Apples and oranges, if you'll permit me.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Isn't Broadway west of Arbutus too narrow to have guideway columns down the middle of Broadway? It certainly isn't as wide as other corridors which have currently columns.

I think it could divert onto 10th, which is definitely wide enough (6 parking and travel lane widths).

If removing lanes on 49th, Burrard, Expo, and Dunsmuir for bikes is justified, removing a lane on 10th for rapid transit is justified.

And less people would be driving if they could take the train.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yes, the riders' experience should count, but I think that a 20-minute (ballpark figure) commute, is nothing compared with having an (often noisy), concrete guideway in your space day and night, month in and month out, not to mention the street and park views that would be scarred by the presence of the guideway.
Apples and oranges, if you'll permit me.

I don't know that taxpayers would have supported tunnelling 100% of the Evergreen line, knowing it would be 3x the cost.

Certainly there are dense residential pockets in Burquitlam, and the density is only going to increase over time, so those neighbourhoods are now permanently affected.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The Broadway line will also be able to use a much smaller TBM just 5-5.3m in diameter, vs. Canada Line's 6.1m.

With the Evergreen tunnel under construction right now, upon completion it should give some real numbers as to time & cost for building a single large tunnel with two tracks vs. two smaller tunnels with a track each.

With the recent Canada Line build using both cut 'n' cover and twin TBM tunnels, these construction costs could also be used to fine-tune the estimated Broadway tunneling costs.

It might be discovered that using a TBM to build a single large tunnel becomes cheap enough per KM to justify a full-bore to UBC rather than a stub-line that ends at Arbutus.

The down-side is that if a single large tunnel is the preferred option because its the cheapest to construct, someone will say "end it at Arbutus and Save Even More $$$".

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

I think it could divert onto 10th, which is definitely wide enough (6 parking and travel lane widths).

If removing lanes on 49th, Burrard, Expo, and Dunsmuir for bikes is justified, removing a lane on 10th for rapid transit is justified.

And less people would be driving if they could take the train.



I don't know that taxpayers would have supported tunnelling 100% of the Evergreen line, knowing it would be 3x the cost.

Certainly there are dense residential pockets in Burquitlam, and the density is only going to increase over time, so those neighbourhoods are now permanently affected.

Conveniently, North Road in Coquitlam/Burnaby had enough room to be widened for 3 lanes of traffic in each direction and still have the Skytrain elevated guideway in the median, so it wasn't necessary to tunnel from Lougheed Station to Burquitlam Station.

Broadway isn't as wide - it's barely able to handle 3 lanes (one used for parking) in each direction & the Left-turn lane, so there's no room for the guideway pillars.

However, there is a street that looks wide enough for an elevated guideway:
16th Ave west of MacDonald.
TBM to MacDonald, turn south to 16th, then turn west again and run on an elevated guideway in the median to UBC.

Good luck convincing the Creme de la Creme that replacing the trees in the 16th Ave median with an elevated guideway is a good idea.

[nname]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Conveniently, North Road in Coquitlam/Burnaby had enough room to be widened for 3 lanes of traffic in each direction and still have the Skytrain elevated guideway in the median, so it wasn't necessary to tunnel from Lougheed Station to Burquitlam Station.

After widening and before the beginning of construction, North Road had 2 lanes + parking northbound, 3 lanes southbound with pull-outs in some area, plus a center median that's 2 lanes wide. That's 8 lanes in total!

Right now the construction takes about 4 lanes in the middle and there's still 2 lane opens for each direction.

Pinetree is a bit narrower, but its still 7 lanes wide. The same goes for No.3 Road in Richmond - and I remember part of No.3 Road had to be narrowed to 1+2 lanes during part of the construction.

If a line to be built the same way on Broadway, then some part would have 1 lane each direction with no parking, some part would need to shut down completely.

[Steveston]

There are two chances of getting an elevated line through West Point Grey.

Slim and None.

[rsxstock]

i would argue that the original 3 lines were necessary to be elevated in order for the entire program to gain traction. now that it has, there's really no longer that need and the risk to invest more for underground is much less

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

i would argue that the original 3 lines were necessary to be elevated in order for the entire program to gain traction. now that it has, there's really no longer that need and the risk to invest more for underground is much less

Are you inferring that the Broadway-UBC line should, or could, be all elevated?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Are you inferring that the Broadway-UBC line should, or could, be all elevated?

I took it to mean that the original Expo & Millennium lines were (mostly) elevated because that was the cheapest way to build, and it wasn't assured they were going to be used (or not) after they were built.

We need to remember that in the 80's, rail transit (aka SkyTrain) at that time was a new & unproven venture in North America, with lots of people remembering the sad last days of the trollies and streetcars before they were replaced with 'modern and sleek' diesel buses in the 50's and 60's. Calgary & Edmonton had just started their LRT lines, and the Scarborough RT was too new to know if it was a success or not.

Today, we see that SkyTrain Expo & Millennium lines are being used at record rates, the Canada Line is exceeding expected volumes, and the volume of traffic on the UBC B-Line beats many rail lines in other cities. So building a cheap & quick Streetcar / LRT line to UBC would be foolish, when a proper heavy-volume SkyTrain in a tunnel is a better fit for the anticipated traffic volumes in the decades ahead.

The 'risk' of building a fully underground line to UBC that is underused is less today because it will build on the success of the rest of the Skytrain lines, and be integrated into these existing lines.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I took it to mean that the original Expo & Millennium lines were (mostly) elevated because that was the cheapest way to build, and it wasn't assured they were going to be used (or not) after they were built.

We need to remember that in the 80's, rail transit (aka SkyTrain) at that time was a new & unproven venture in North America, with lots of people remembering the sad last days of the trollies and streetcars before they were replaced with 'modern and sleek' diesel buses in the 50's and 60's. Calgary & Edmonton had just started their LRT lines, and the Scarborough RT was too new to know if it was a success or not.

(Not to contradict, but was not rail transit already proven in cities like NYC, Toronto, and Montreal?)

Today, we see that SkyTrain Expo & Millennium lines are being used at record rates, the Canada Line is exceeding expected volumes, and the volume of traffic on the UBC B-Line beats many rail lines in other cities. So building a cheap & quick Streetcar / LRT line to UBC would be foolish, when a proper heavy-volume SkyTrain in a tunnel is a better fit for the anticipated traffic volumes in the decades ahead.

The 'risk' of building a fully underground line to UBC that is underused is less today because it will build on the success of the rest of the Skytrain lines, and be integrated into these existing lines.

Thank you for that encouraging feedback.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

i would argue that the original 3 lines were necessary to be elevated in order for the entire program to gain traction. now that it has, there's really no longer that need and the risk to invest more for underground is much less

And yet most of the Evergreen line isn't being tunneled..

Cut and cover in Surrey isn't even being considered..

In 30-50 years Surrey/Burnaby/Coquitlam will rival Vancouver in density and importance..

But seemingly visual impact / aesthetics / noise / blight / disruption / crime (and whatever other externalities you can think of) are only being taken into account in Vancouver.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

(Not to contradict, but was not rail transit already proven in cities like NYC, Toronto, and Montreal?)

Driver less technology had not been proven at the time.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

In 30-50 years Surrey/Burnaby/Coquitlam will rival Vancouver in density and importance..

I have a hard time believing that.

[logan5]

Makes me wonder though if the Broadway corridor will ever rival downtown Vancouver in density and importance. The Broadway Line will function more as a real urban subway system servicing a central business district as well as dense neighbourhoods like Commercial Drive, Mt. Pleasant, Fairview, and Kits.